NCclimber

If you say so. I'm still trying to find a credible source claiming Colin Powell tried to cover up the My Lai massacre. So far, you're a voice in the wilderness on that one.

I completely agree that religion can do without sports, but both are things that people do crazy shit for, like kill and die for. What would you be willing to die for?

Were you friends with the jocks during your high school years?

Funny how we're geting ever deeper in debt, isn't it? Again, way off point I think not. So, tell us Kallend, how the deficit is relevant to the fact that government revenues are at record levels. Are you saying that revenues would not be at record levels if the deficit was significantly smaller? Please enlighten us.

??? so, if it doesn't come out of Berkeley=not good/true.... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Berkeley is not the only other place in the world besides OISM. Have you actually investigated OISM? www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine Maybe you can explain why you trust these folks and not NOAA. Former and present faculty include: - discoverer of Carbon 14 and recipient of 1996 the Enrico Fermi award. - Nobel Prize winner - former director of laboratory work for the Salk Institute. - former President and Research Director of the Linus Pauling Institute Definitely a bunch of hack nut jobs.

Some people seemed to have missed this the first time around.

The US is doing it now. Record reciepts for how many months? And the federal deficit is in GREAT shape, as is the trade deficit. Oh, wait. What does the deficit have to do with the fact that tax revenues have been increasing?

The union shops in RTW states are pretty intolerant of employees who don't join. The union bosses aren't the problem. It's the co-workers (union members) that can/will make your work environment miserable.

I thought it was ignorance but it could be hyperbole for the purpose of sarcasm. Africa has about 30% of the planet's mineral reserves, including 40% of gold, 60% of the cobalt and 90% of the world's platinum group metal reserves. And then there are diamonds. I'm glad my post was such a hit with so many of you. The mineral resources are in the hands of a few and are purchased at the going rate. Gold is $670.00/oz. Platinum is $1215.00/oz. Revenue from these resources has little bearing on most people on the continent. Vortexring, You keep talking about fair trade. What exactly are you talking about? How is Africa being prevented from trading with other countries? What obstacles exist for countries, that are not due to their own particular systems? What changes could be made so they could provide themselves with the same benefit they get from donations? Please enlighten me. About Africa in general, particularly sub-Saharan Africa - the place is a mess. Is there any region that hasn't had major civil strife in the last 50 years? When peace does come, it seems temporary. Saying the donations would be unnecessary if we just conducted fair trade with a continent that is in a perpetual state of chaos seems unrealistic. And to everyone who chimed in with "The most stupid comment I've heard yet." "What an arrogant statement" "How about pulling your nose out of your a**" Sorry if I stuck a knife in one of your sacred cows. I guess I could have clarified it a bit like: By and large, the vast majority of Africans produce little in the way of exports. The Sub-saharan population is over 10% of the world total, but their exports are only 1.2% of the worldwide total. It is unrealistic to think people of Africa could provide for themselves the food and drugs that are now free, if only the rest of the world would exercise new fair trade practices with them.

I was referring to the food, medicine, etc... that we donate. Doh! Really? Yes, really. (Trade and sold are not the same as donate.) Why is there a necessity to donate? Cuz they ain't got nothing to trade with, that would amount to more than a few pennies, when compared to the dollars of stuff we give them .

You're wrong. Kidding.

being unable to run a profitable business appears to be a great way to make it far in American Politics....just look at your current President. Go Rangers!

I love that line...even better is when people actually believe it too. You really think the Germans would have lost WWII without US support? I doubt you'll find any history scholars making that claim. A common misconception is that the US gets most of the credit. I don't buy it. But to say the end result would have been the same without the US is bogus.

That has been discussed extensively in the "Who was the best US president? " thread, and is irrelevant to the point in question anyway. Discussed extensively? I checked that thread and found it mentioned, once. And that was to state when it was approved. Irrelevant to the point? I thought we were talking about getting involved in foreign entanglements without being attacked. We can debate motivations all day long, but that won't change the fact that we aided England, Russia and others prior to being attacked.

Notice how quick she is to point out the AK-47 rifle. And then notice how she doesn't even bother to mention what type of firearm was used in Utah. Well, that happened to be a shotgun. --------------------------------------------------------- I live in Utah. They just revealed today that the shooter is a Muslim. Why has this not been mentioned. Who are we afraid of offending ? I heard that yesterday ad I live in IL. Just because your source is slow doesn't mean the information has been concealed. I just did a google news search for salt lake mall shooting. The result was 1551 stories. I added muslim to the search. The result was 176 stories. I'm not sure "concealed" is the right word. "Omited" seems more fitting. Hmm.

Clearly the country needs to be invaded and the people need to be liberated from oppression. Or, since their Human Rights record is abysmal, a trade embargo should be put in place...right? In stead, you give them more and more and mroe and more business...hard to btich about how they treat their people at the same time though. We like how they treat their people, it results in the cheap stuff in WalMart north americans are addicted too. What does this have to do with American imperialism versus Chinese imperialism? Billvon was indicating things aren't that bad in China. I offered a counterpoint? Are you saying it's not that bad in China? That it's horrible? Hard to tell.

You're cherry-picking, Bill. What he said was: Did you read the recent story about Chinese soldiers shooting Tibetans for merely trying to cross into Nepal? Are you aware of what has been going on in Tibet, since 1950? From what I know, it's the same today as it was 50 years ago.

And the "request for help" you mentioned? If we invaded all countries violating UN resolutions we would be stretched very thin indeed, and would have invaded some very close allies. Possessing OIL seems to be a requirement. If the US wouldn't have responded to numerous "missions" over the years, I'd imagine that much of Europe would be speaking Deutsche, and many Pacific rim countries would be speaking Japanese. over Are you now claiming that Hitler's declaration of war against the US on 12/11/1941 was a request for help? Are you saying that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a request for help? You have a very funny idea about things. Was the Lend Lease program implemented before or after December 7, 1941?

With the exception of our leaders in Washington. We always get fair and honest stories on them. No propaganda at all. No Way!

The OP article looks like unsupported propaganda.

I have absolutely no information or opinion about his "hate towards gays". Here you go. http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/ It's just a blog by a guy who openly states his involvement in the Republican party. Feel free to disprove any of his statements about Franken

On the one hand, they had to cancel 14 shows on their last tour. On the other, they absolutely kicked ass in album sales. All things considered, I'd guess they came out ahead. On a different note, their wikipedia page is locked. Go figure.

According to Lucky, interest rates were in the high teens when Clinton took office. Never mind that that national average mortgage rate was below 7 1/2 per cent. Everybody was really paying 10 points higher. We all see what we want to see. Fortunatley for you, Bill deleted that thread. Credit card and vehicle interest was teens to high teens, houses were around 9% with good credit. As I wrote in that thread, my GF bought a house and paid 9% and she has a high credit score. Your example related to rates in '91, not January fo '93, when the average mortgate rate was as high as 9 1/2%. And you never showed any proof of the high teens interest rates, just rhetoric. When Clinton took office, mortgate rates were at the lowest level in twenty years, yet you tried to make it sound like a negative. When Clinton took office, the Prime Rate was 6%. When he left, it was over 9%. As you presented it, Clinton inherited a horrible situation and left a fantastic one. The only reason I bring this back up it to point out how some people just see what they want to see, even if it's a ovbiously myopic perspective.

Don't kid yourself. Both sides view the other side as the worse offender. I honestly don't think I'm kidding myself or anyone else. Sure, politics has always had a seedy, mudslinging side but the R's starting in the late 80's brought it to a new level. It was damn near elevated to an art form during the Clinton years. A couple of examples, Whitewater. A sour land deal worth about $200K occupies the news for about six years, costs the taxpayers probably $100 million and no one finds any wrong doing. Cheney runs a company that admits to defrauding the taxpayer for millions of dollars and........chirp......chirp.......chirp. Nothing. Number two: A seedy rumor gets spread around (yet another Scaife creation) that the Clintons were involved in Fosters death. That gets a fair amount of air time, still gets thrown around by some on the right, and has helped to fuel this notion that Hillary's people are hateful, vindictive and ready slice and dice any opponent. How do you think she would be portrayed if she had ACTUALLY killed someone? Would she have gotten the kid gloves that Laura did? Hell no. P.S. No, I'm not trying to stir up anything with regard to Mrs. Bush's unfortunate history. Just using it as a good example of a double standard. Well, for starters, the Clinton's have a pretty sleazy trail. Bill's back-stabbing tactics and misrepresentations to avoid the draft. Numerous charges of rape and sexual misconduct. A trail of dead bodies. Bill's drug dealing brother. Hillary has a 10,000% return on Cattle Futures and then decides "I'm good". "Vince Foster is dead - we better go clean up/out his apartment". Hillary's charge of a vast right wing conspiracy blew up in her face.... and on Monica's dress, too. No doubt, the end result of the Starr investigation was a huge waste of resources. That doesn't change the fact that the Clinton's left a particularly nasty wake. Was Haliburton guilty of wrongdoing while Cheney was in charge? I know about the company's financial irregularities. They were well reported in the media. Hopefully, the company will be fully prosecuted for it's wrongdoing. Comparing Hillary to Laura Bush is a bad analogy. Hillary came on the scene basically saying "I'm a modern woman, not a Tammy Wynnette 'stand by your man' type . We are the presidency." In other words, she said "I don't give a shit how all the other first ladies have acted, if my husband wins, I'll be the co-President" This pissed off a lot of people. In contrast, Laura Bush has made a point of distancing herself from the power of the Presidency, instead taking on the role as ambassador and dignitary for the Presidency and the country.

This sounds like the same story we heard when the European Union was being formed. How's that been working out?